Monday, April 17, 2017

Your research into the background to the formation of Boko Haram is very educative to a lot on the list serve, yours truly inclusive and Hillary Clintons informed comments are highly appreciated.

However I will continue to back Moses Ochonus provocateur on a psychoanalytic examination of human motivation to horrendous mass action because it has been proven to be a useful (if difficult & technical tool) of social scientific and historical analysis. It is not a populist field in view of the highly technical manner of its investigative approaches and the reactions so far had proven some of us trained in its intricacies right. May I pose a few questions and observations:

First of all when you see captivity of hundreds of girls from a girls school is that crime sex specific or not?

When religious war commanders treat girls taken against their will rape them forcibly put them in the family way is that a sex specific crime or not ?

When we see on BBC prime time television Panorama a young woman buried in the soil to her neck for not doing the bidding of her captors is that a sex specific crime or not?

What psychoanalysis as a field has shown is that a passion may arise from a specific origins but may transform behavioural manifestation from source to the satisfaction of the passion.

It is true that religion as an alternative equitable organising paradigm may be the originating intention of Boko Haram. That reality is not incompatible with the realization that some of the foot soldiers and commanders did see sexual gratification as boon of war as the evidence I invoked in my earlier questions clearly demonstrate.

Nor is Islam the only culprit. Because of the uncertainties of war and the cheap commodities that lives have been turned into soldiers always want to enjoy the last pleasures coming to them because they know that without much notice death might come calling with a stray bullet.

In Cyprian Ekwensi' novel on the Biafran War 'Survive the Peace' the ubiquity of death and ' the last cigarette' of accessible sex was demonstrated in the amorous banter of one of the female characters and her lover: 'While you are shelling make sure you dont pour in the troops.'

We may validly explain the formation of Boko Haram due to purely socio- economic factors but we may also pose the question 'why did the eastern Nigerians not react to whole sale corruption in their region the way Boko Haram did? Why did organising alternative ways of providing for the people turn to capturing female members of the same people against their will?

Sata Guru had formed a religious commune on Badagry expressway for decades why did they not take up arms against surrounding states and conduct raid for female captives?

These are legitimate questions for the firld of psychonalysis as indeed the whole question of religion. They are not always easy to answer but psychonalysis believes all problems in our lives start with the satisfsction or repression of the pleasure principle starting from the pleasure of being born whose sustenance is the reason for living. All the need for aquisitions is traceable to that.

It believes that in raising all members of the society to civilized standards we are being taught how to channel our basic pleasures into acceptable ways that promotes the goals of scoiety/ civilization. Those not acceptable are repressed or sublimated into acceptable forms.

During war situations this civilizing mission breaks down and our unbridled lusts and unchecked instincts take over. The stages by which these processes take over is what you have been demonstrating in the original goals of Boko Haram and the twists and manifestations of war similar to what happened in the Holocaust in Hitlers 'Final Solution' whose meanings changed as the fortunes of the perpetrators changed in the context of excalation of war until perpertrators feeling they had nothing more to lose resorted to the basest of bestiality in human history.

Yes. Sex has a lot to do with it in the context of war. Sex has a lot to do with the exteriorization of the libido and testosterone in aggression to discharge the libidinal impulses and to use female war captives as the pleasursble discharge of the libidinal impulses.

First, we drove away non-Africans from the USAfrica Dialogue forum. Next, Sierra Leoneans and Ghanaians took flight, followed by Nigerians who craved for more civility. Now more Nigerians are complaining that they are finding the Forum too toxic for active engagement, just as many who have remained "on the side lines" have long moved/ are moving on to newer and intellectually more refreshing/nourishing media. Would the Endowed Abusers-in-Residence at USAfrica Dialogue forum be putting out the lights? - Okey Iheduru

Since Okey Iheduru addressed his post direct to Toyin Falola, I cannot help wondering if the "we" that "drove away non-Africans from the USAfrica Dialogue forum" contained only Okey and Toyin or if other people were contained in the "we." How were the non-Africans driven away from the forum? Did Sierra Leoneans, Ghanaians and Nigerians, who deserted the forum, complain to Okey Iheduru that the cause of their desertion was due to incivilities suffered from members? What constituted the incivilities? While awaiting answers to these questions, I feel very sorry to observe that pressures have been mounted on the 'Moderator' of this forum to censor out of publication some posts on this list serve because the language of communications were not pleasant enough to some people. Africans, and especially Nigerian intellectuals, always feel that it is incivility to openly prove in a public discourse that their ideas on any socio-political-economic subject are foolish or stupid. They feel belittled and demeaned and they get angry at any person they think is uncivil to them. That is the problem we now encounter on this subject captioned 'Sexual Repression and Extremism in Northern Nigeria,' which the author admitted to as being a deliberate provocation. And when one provokes in normal clime, the provocateur must expect both rational and irrational responses from those who are provoked. Here the provocateur wants every responder to laugh and sanction the stigmatization of Northern Nigeria's men as sex addicts on the ground of 'Boko Haram and when that did not happen, he was enraged.

I once enquired on this forum if anyone with the knowledge of Hausa and English languages could confirm if the translation of Boko Haram into English is Western Education is Forbidden. I did not get any response. Jama'atu Ahl-Sunnah Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad, meaning People Committed to the propagation of the Prophet's Teaching and Jihad, was formed in Bornu State in 2002 as a religious group. Between 2004 and 2009, they grew as a movement and started cooperative farm settlements, created jobs for their members, provided welfare for disabled members and trained people as artisans. They provided an alternative to the Government of the day in Bornu State with their programmes and attracted more members. In 2007, the Governor of Bornu State, Ali Modu Sheriff, appointed a strong member of Jama'atu Ahl-Sunnah Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad, Buji Foi, as Bornu State Commissioner of Religious Affairs. There was peace in Bornu State until when the government of Ali Modu Sheriff banned riding bikes without wearing helmets, in February 2009. Five months later in July 2009, a prominent member of the movement died, and a large number of the sect trouped out on bikes to bury him. They were stopped by the police for lack of helmets while riding. In the ensuing resistance, police shot and wounded many members of the sect on their way to the burial ground. The sect quickly mobilised and killed policemen in Bauchi, Bornu and Yobe States. In Maiduguri, they took over the town and controlled it for three days until the Army was drafted in to help. The Army regained control and arrested the sect's leader, Mohammed Yusuf and a lot of his members. Mohammed Yusuf was handed over to the Police who was extra judicially murdered as well as Buji Foi, the Commissioner of Religious affairs who was shot at the back by the Police as testified to by the online video film.

Although Yar'Adua was President of Nigeria when the leader of the sect, Mohammed Yusuf, was murdered by the Nigerian Police and the sect became militant, some intellectuals have posted on this list serve that the sect, later named Boko Haram by opponents, was formed to make Nigeria ungovernable for President Goodluck Jonathan. Religion might have been the rallying point for the sect but at the beginning their aim was to tackle poverty in their communities of which they succeeded, to some extent, from 2002 to July 2009. Sexual hunger was not the cause of the founding of 'Boko Haram' it was as a result of social and economic injustice not only in the Northeast but entire Nigeria. That was why the US refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. After addressing a town hall meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 with US State Department employees to mark her one year anniversary as Secretary of State, she opened the floor for questions. One Tood Woodard asked, "Given the recent alleged attempted attack by the young Nigerian on a Christmas Day and also the purported audio message from Osama bin Laden heralding that attack and assuming responsibility for it, I'm curious to hear what your thoughts regarding the connection between Islamist's organisations and young Muslims in West Africa, specifically Nigeria. I'm curious to hear what your opinion is regarding the driving factors for the youth accepting and embracing the Islamist ideology?"

Hillary Clinton answered, "In Nigeria, which is, as you know, evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, about 75 million of each - Christians predominantly in the South, Muslims predominantly in the North - there has been accommodation that has enabled Nigeria to survive politically. But the failure of the Nigerian leadership over many years to respond to the legitimate needs of their own young people, to have a government that promoted meritocracy, that really understood that democracy can't just be given lip service, it has to be delivering services to the people, has meant that there is a lot of alienation in that country and others. ...//... And the information we have on the Christmas Day bomber so far seems to suggest that he was disturbed by his father's wealth and the kind of living conditions that he views as not being Islamic enough and just the kinds of attitudes young people often portray toward their families as they go through their maturing. But in this case, and in so many others, such young people are targets for recruiters to extremism. So I do think that Nigeria faces a threat from increasing radicalisation that needs to be addressed, and not just by military means. There has to be recognition that in the last ten years, a lot of indicators about quality of life in Nigeria have gone the wrong direction. The rate of illiteracy is growing, not falling, in a country that used to have a very high rate of literacy in Africa. The health statistics are going the wrong direction. The corruption is unbelievable. And that is an opening for extremism that offers an alternative world view. You want to live in peace and safety and feel good about yourself and be part of the community that you can be proud of, then turn away from your society and your family and come with us. And that can be a powerful message, whether it's a gang in America or an extremist organisation in Nigeria."

In order to back up what Hillary Clinton said about the fertilizer of Islamic extremism in Nigeria let us look at the total income that accrued to all the 19 States in the North between 1999 and 2010. During the 11 years, the sum of N 8.3 trillion was received by the 19 States in the North from Federation Account. The breakdown is as follows : Kano State got N333.1 billion for its 44 local governments and N428.4 billion for the state government. Total allocation of funds was N761.7 billion. Katsina State got N253.8billion for its 34 local governments and N310.2 billion for the State govern. totalling N564 billion; Kaduna State got a total of N530.1 billion; Bornu State got N 503 billion; Niger State got a total of N487.2 billion; Benue State got a total of N465.3 billion; Bauchi State got a total of N463.3 billion; Jigawa State got N475 billion; Adamawa State got N410.3 billion; Sokoto State got N432.3 billion; Yobe State got N364.9 billion; Gombe State got N299.1 billion; Zamfara State got N359.8 billion; Taraba State got N370.2 billion; Kogi State got N413 billion; Kebi State got N403.1 billion; Kwara State got N345.3 billion; Nasarawa State got N301.6 billion and Plateau State got N377.9 billion. The exchange rate of Naira to a dollar between 1999 and 2010 fluctuated between 90 and 140 naira. So the big question is what did the 19 States in the North do with all the allocations from the Federation Account that they received between 1999 and 2010? Nearly all the 19 Governors have been standing trials for treasury lootings since 2007 till date. Instead of highlighting treasury looters whose loots cause more deaths per day than what Boko Haram can accomplish in a year, our intellectuals see extreme sex appetites as the cause of Islamic extremists in Nigeria. I beg to disagree because people normally do die of lack of food to eat, potable water to drink and pure air to breath and not of sex starvation.

First, we drove away non-Africans from the USAfrica Dialogue forum. Next, Sierra Leoneans and Ghanaians took flight, followed by Nigerians who crave for more civility. Now, more Nigerians are complaining that they are finding the Forum too toxic for active engagement, just as many who have remained "on the sidelines" have long moved/are moving on to newer and intellectually more refreshing/nourishing media. Would the Endowed Abusers-in-Residence at USAfrica Dialogue forum be putting out the lights?

I believe it was Ernest Hemingway who said that only fools write for for free. If folks will voluntarily forego food on their tables to engage with this forum, the least we can all do is to insist on illuminating civil discourse, and not condone incivility or cut anyone slack for their past accomplishments when they contribute little and/or even relish in squelching the conversation.

It would be worth reflecting on these historical snippets: Years ago, IBM was mass-producing "Selectric Brother Type-Writers" while Apple and Microsoft were making PCs. Look at where and what we are today! USAfrica Dialogue forum (outliving its usefulness?) vs. new social media? And, as a historian, you remember Elder Dempster Lines as the preferred passenger service vehicle on the River Niger?

Listen to the humming bird; it might be saying something interesting :).

Professor Falola, where is the contribution to this discussion by Jibrin that I missed? Am I missing something. I was responding to Abdul and Ibrahim, the two artful dodgers and anti-intellectual debate killers, not to Jibrin, who has not joined this discussion.

With all due respect, Professor Falola, your moderator note fails the basic test of fairness and balance. First of all you should not be basing your moderation on who is formidable and who is not. Everyone should be treated the same. Leave members to decide who is formidable and who is not. It is all in the reader's eye. Secondly, Ibrahim and Abdul attacked me, saying that I have a minority agenda, that I am masking the truth, that I am driven by ethnicity, etc. Did you read my post? Did you see anything that remotely resembles a mention of ethnicity or the promotion of an ethnic agenda or a minority agenda in it? I responded to the suggestion that war and sex have always been interlinked--an obvious point--and pointed out Boko Haram and other Salafi-Jihadi groups are peculiar precisely because they have developed an elaborate theological rationale for justifying and promoting the sexual enslavement of the female members of their enemy societies (infidels), an ideological infrastructure of sexual entitlement that you don't find in secular warfare, a theological justification of sexual enslavement in jihad that the "weaponization of sex" argument does not explain or capture. They left that point alone and continued to call me names and make silly ad hominem insinuations about my motive and "where you're coming from." Even Bolaji had to intervene to redirect the conversation back to the issues I raised by restating the main questions. They continued to make all insinuations and to impute imaginary motives to me. You stood aside watching this anti-intellectual attitude of their unfold only to now weigh in to exonerate them of anti-intellectualism and to pretend as though I had not responded to the reductive, pedestrian, and commonsensical point about the weaponization of sex. This is not moderation.

I'm not bordered by critique; I savor it. That is how I refine my thinking. In fact, I posted this provocation here in the hope of getting critique and of sparking a rich conversation around the issues raised. There is critique that is grounded in substance and faithful to the issues at stake and one that is grounded in emotive bluster and in unfounded preconceptions and assumptions. I welcome, appreciate, and engage critique. You've known me for a long time, so you should know that I am game for debate and that in fact I enjoy it. But the debate and critique have to be substantive. Nowadays, I have no time for conversations that will not challenge me to think or add intellectual value to me; I'm too busy. What you have here is an anti-intellectual hostility to debate and discussion on controversial and sensitive topics, as well as a tendency to instinctively lash out at people who broach such subjects in the hope of silencing them. That is the problem I have with some of the responses and attitudes here. Of course such juvenile antics will not work with me.

You're my friend on Facebook and you may have seen the conversation on the same post over there. The reception of my provocative hypothesis there is not unanimously positive. Some agree with me, others disagree. Some agree partially and others disagree partially. But everyone is focusing on the issue I raised and making their points as passionately as they want to without the personal obsessions, insinuations, and escapist tactics you see on display here. No one there is questioning my motive or insinuating a phantom ethnic agenda. Folks there are discussing the post in the spirit of intellectual debate and inquiry that I offered it. I have learned a lot from the exchanges there.

Which is why it is disappointing to see those who call themselves intellectuals and academics display such unscholarly revulsion to controversial, unfamiliar, and disagreeable opinions.